Appeal No. 2007-0332
Application No. 10/316,312
preferred embodiment (col. 7, ll. 6-43). We note that Chipman’s protocol
translators facilitate supplier publication of HTML pages that comply with
the special protocol (col. 10, ll. 39-42 and col. 12, ll. 19-36). Accordingly,
we find that Chipman’s step of translation for publication occurs before the
user (i.e., customer) can view the supplier data using a web browser.
To anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention
must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim.
Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383, 58
USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Scripps Clinic & Research
Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001,
1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In the instant case, we conclude that the rejection
formulated by the Examiner relies upon Chipman’s steps of translating and
extracting that occur in reverse sequence to the sequence of steps required
by the language of claim 1. Because the Examiner’s rejection has failed to
show every limitation (i.e., step) of the claimed invention arranged as in the
claim, we agree that the Examiner has not met the burden of establishing a
prima facie case of anticipation with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we
will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as being
anticipated by Chipman.
Nevertheless, after carefully considering the Examiner’s rejection and
the entire Chipman reference, we find an alternate reading of independent
claim 1 on the Chipman patent. Therefore, pursuant to our authority under
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we have sua sponte set forth new grounds of rejection
for claim 1 infra.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013